Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.12.2009. While upholding the findings of the trial court, the Lower Appellate Court observed as under:

"Admittedly, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are real brothers who had partitioned the land of their share measuring 158 kanals from the other share holders vide judgment and decree dated 16.9.1995. The stand taken up by the plaintiff-appellant as argued by his counsel Sh. C.L. Narang, Advocate is that the appellant-plaintiff never executed the affidavit Ex.D1 regarding the mutual partition of suit land along with defendant No.1 as shown in mutation No.1390 dated 27.6.1996 vide which specific khasra number of the land measuring 79 kanals have been shown in the possession of the defendant No.1 while the remaining specific khasra number of land measuring 65 kanals 4 marlas have been shown in the possession of the plaintiff out of the total land measuring 158 kanals received by the parties by virtue of the judgment and decree dated 16.9.1995. This plea cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the execution of the affidavit Ex.D1 has been duly proved from the statements of DW1 Shamsher Singh, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert and Sh.B.S Sandhu, Advocate DW2 which are further corroborated by the version of Sucha Singh DW3 and, therefore, defendant No.1 was not required to examine the attesting authority or the scribe of the affidavit to prove the execution of the affidavit Ex.D1. The plaintiff has alleged that defendant No.1 has procured his thumb impressions upon stamp paper in connection with the criminal litigation but the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the fact that any criminal proceedings were pending between them in any court of law for which his thumb impressions upon blank stamp papers were required by the defendant. A perusal of the affidavit Ex.D1 shows that it was a memorandum of partition which was arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 which is not bad for want of registration. Admittedly, mutation No.1390 has been sanctioned after the execution of the affidavit dated 13.5.1996 Ex.D1 but in column No.13 of the mutation reference has only been made to the judgment and decree dated 16.9.1995 and not to the affidavit dated 31.5.1996 but the fact remains that affidavit dated 31.5.1996 Ex.D1 is also the basis of mutation No.1390 which is clear from the fact that it has been reflected in the Parat Sarkar and the original affidavit was produced from the official record which is being maintained by the revenue agency and thus, the mutation in question which was sanctioned on the basis of the judgment and decree and the affidavit showing mutual partition between the parties is perfectly legal and valid which is binding upon the rights of the parties. It is only due to this reason that after the sanction of mutation No.1390 on 31.5.1996 the plaintiff admittedly disposed of his share of the entire land. A perusal of the sale deed and the mutations on record vide which he had disposed of his property shows that the property alienated by him are exactly the same which has devolved upon him by virtue of the family partition arrived at between the parties on the basis of affidavit Ex.D1 and shown in the mutation No.1390. The plaintiff is not in possession over the suit land as he had already sold his entire land on the basis of the mutation No.1390 long back in the year 2003. Even PW1 in his cross- examination has admitted that he is residing at Ratia since the year 2003 where he was plying a truck which had already been sold by him one year back. The plaintiff had challenged the mutation No.1390 dated 27.6.1996 by way of filing the present suit on 4.3.2006 after the expiry of about 10 years and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to say that he came to know about the mutation No.1390 dated 31.5.1996 in February, 2006 and thus, the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit which is not maintainable in the present form as he is having no concern with the suit land in any manner. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case law reported in Anand Sawrup Data versus Punjab National Bank 1997(3) RCR (Civil) 437, Gopal Singh (died) through his LRs versus Punjab State 1992 (2) Recent Revenue Reports 44, D. Agastin versus Devasagayan 1999 (4) Recent Civil Reports 134, G. Sarangapani versus H. Kanakaiah & ors. 1995 (3) Recent Revenue Reports 60, Bankey Bihari Versus Surya Narain alias Munnoo 1999(3) RCR (Civil) 469 and Roop Singh versus Murti Sri Radha Krishan Ji 2009 (3) Civil Court Cases 676 (P&H) in support of his contention. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities but the same are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case where it has been duly proved that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land which is owned and possessed by defendant No.1.

A perusal of the sale deed and the mutations on record vide which he had disposed of his property shows that the property alienated by him is exactly the same which has devolved upon him by virtue of the family partition arrived at between the parties on the basis of affidavit Ex.D1 and shown in the mutation No.1390. The plaintiff is not in possession over the suit land as he had already sold his entire land on the basis of the mutation No.1390 long back in the year 2003. Further Ex.D1 being a memorandum of partition which was arrived at between the brothers cannot be held to be bad for want of registration. Admittedly, mutation No.1390 was sanctioned on the basis of the aforesaid agreement affidavit Ex.D1 and the reference of the same finds mention and reflected in the Parat Sarkar (copy of the order pasted in the revenue record of mutation) and the original affidavit was produced from the official record which was maintained by the revenue agencies and thus, the mutation in question which was sanctioned on the basis of decree and the affidavit showing mutual partition between the parties, was perfectly legal and is binding upon the rights of the parties as of this mutation only, the plaintiff- appellant had admittedly disposed of his share of the entire land by selling specific khasra numbers as entered in his name.